M/s V.K. Sood Engineer & Contractor, Panchkula V. Addl. CIT, Panchkula

ITA 530/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4968 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: VINEET KISHAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Non compliance
• Section: 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 530/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S V.K. SOOD ENGINEER & CONTRACTOR VS. THE ADDL. CIT DDS JV, UNIT-III, #20 PANCHKULA RANGE SECTOR 6, PANCHKULA PANCHKULA PAN NO. AAGFV0584J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. VINEET KISHAN REVENUE BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 02/05/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09/05/2018 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), PANCHKULA, DT. 10/03/2015. 2. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 250(6) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS), PANCHKUL A IN APPEAL NO. 109/PKL/13- 14 DATED 10.03.2015 IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT WHICH IS AGAINST THE NATURAL PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE. 3. THAT IN THE PRESENCE OF PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MA INTAINED BY THE APPELLANT DULY SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND VOUCHERS , TH E LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA GRAVELLY ERRED IN UPHOLDIN G THE ACTION OF LD ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING BLANKET DISALLOWANCE OF 40% OF TO TAL EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT RESULTING IN ADDITION OF RS. 1,29,89,689/ -. 2(A) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE DISALLOWAN CE IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 4. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GRAVELLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING ADDITION OF RS. 1,16,995/- MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHO MADE BLANKET DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OF THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES:- 2 4. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GRAVELLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING ADDITION OF RS. 13,25,838/- MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BY DISALLOWING THE INTEREST ON TH E ALLEGED GROUND THAT INTEREST FREE LOANS WERE GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERN. 5. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GRAVELLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING ADDITION OF RS. 3,52,893/- MADE BY THE LD. AO BY RESTRICTING THE DEPRECIATION ON TRAILORS @ 15 % AS AGAINST THE CLAIM AND ALLOWABLE DEPRECIATION @ 30%. 6. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GRAVELLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH IN ANY CA SE IS EXCESSIVE. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, E NGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AS CONTRACTOR, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2011 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.49,56,930/- AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,97,42,335/-. 4. THE NOTICES ISSUED AND THE REPLY FILED DURING TH E APPELLATE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER: SL. NO. PARTICULARS REMARKS I. NOTICE DATED 05.08.2014 FIXED FOR 21.08.2014 LETTER RECEIVED IN DAK FOR ADJOURNMENT II. NOTICE DATED 03.09.2014 FIXED FOR 18.09.2014 ON REQUEST THE CASE ADJOURNED FOR 14/10/2014 III. ON 14.10.2014 LETTER RECEIVED IN DAK FOR ADJOURNMENT IV. NOTICE DATED 14.11.2014 FIXED FOR 02.12.2014 LETTER RECEIVED IN DAK FOR ADJOURNMENT V. NOTICE DATED 15.12.2014 FIXED FOR 12.01.2015 VI. ON 09.01.2015 CASE ADJOURNED FOR 29/01/2015 VII. ON 29.01.2015 ON REQUEST THE CASE ADJOURNED FOR LAST TIME FOR 18/02/2015 IX. ON 18.02.2015 NO COMPLIANCE 5. OWING TO NON COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES , THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED AN ORDER BY DECIDING THE ISSUES BASED ON THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 1) VEHICLE RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE RS. 3,25,729/- 2) TRAVELLING RS. 1,16,778/- 3) TELEPHONE RS. 1,42,470/- TOTAL RS. 5,84,977 3 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR IN HIS ORAL ARGUMENTS PLEA DED THAT THE COUNSEL COULD NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) OW ING TO ILL HEALTH FOR A LONGER DURATION OF THE YEAR. HE ARGUED THAT GIVEN AN OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD, THE ASSESSEE WOULD COMPLY TO ALL THE NOTICES AND SUBMIT ALL THE REQUIRED DETAILS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 7. LD. DR. FAIRLY AGREED TO THE PROPOSITION OF REMA NDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH. 8. HENCE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IF AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS GIVEN TO THE AS SESSEE. AND WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLY TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(A) PROMPTLY AND NOT TO ABUSE THE FAITH IMPOSED ON HIM WHILE REMANDING THE MATTER FOR ADJUDICATION DE- NOVO. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT . SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER DATED : 09/05/2018 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR